See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/368788488

Improvement of Foam Concrete Block Masonry against Seismic Forces

Conference Paper · December 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 36

4 authors, including:

Salman Hamad Muhammad Talha

University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar
2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

improvement of foam concrete block masonry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Salman Hamad on 25 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Disaster Management

Arranged by: Department of Civil Engineering, UET Peshawar.

Improvement of Foam Concrete Block Masonry against Seismic Forces

Salman Hamad
University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan 18pwciv5047@uetpeshawar.edu.pk

Lal Zaman
University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan, 18pwciv5196@uetpeshawar.edu.pk

IrfanUllah
University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan, irfanhamid00@gmail.com

Muhammad Talha
University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan, talhakhan11118@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: The building and construction sector is one of the biggest worldwide resource consumers and polluters. Therefore, it
has a heavy obligation to promote sustainability. Therefore, we have chosen foam concrete FC blocks, a novel material for the
masonry that targets many Sustainability goals. Foam concrete is produced commercially with a continuous foaming generator which
helped to use foam concrete as building material e.g., blocks etc. Masonry of FC blocks has some advantages over normal heavy
weight block masonry. It reduces service dead load substantially because of its light unit weight. It reduces overall time of
construction because of its bigger size which makes FC block masonry premium over heavy weight block masonry. Which implies
that how sustainable the FC blocks are? But the masonry of FC blocks cannot be practiced confidentially both in infill and load
bearing walls due to negligible research study and lack of experimental data of foam concrete block masonry. Therefore, this research
work is an attempt to explore the mechanical properties and the overall performance, in term of lateral resistance of FC block masonry
against seismic force. A strengthening technique, the Ferro-cement overlay was applied to the sample. The samples were fabricated
according to American society for testing and materials. Prism and Diagonal tests were performed on the samples, and the results
are compressive strength of FC block masonry is 65.72 psi, young’s modulus is 22 ksi, Diagonal compression strength of the FC
block masonry came out to 34.50 psi, Tensile strength of the masonry was 17 psi, Shear strength was 19 psi and Lateral resistance
of the masonry equals to 8.2 psi. Comparing the results with the previous study done on un-strengthen FC block masonry show that
ferrocement overlay has almost no effect on the mechanical properties and lateral resistance of FC block masonry.

KEYWORDS: Ferrocement, Improvement or Strengthening, FC block Masonry, Diagonal and Prism testing

handle on-site and cover more area in less time. It gives 50%
labor savings over heavyweight masonry units [3].
1, INTRODUCTION.
In Pakistan majority of residential buildings are single-story or
double-story masonry buildings. Type of masonry used for
constructing structures in Pakistan are commonly bricks, blocks,
and Stonemasonry [1]. Figure 1 gives an insight into the statistics
of masonry buildings in Pakistan. Masonry is well recognized for
laying standard dimension units differently on top of one another
to create houses, walls, and other structures. Masonry was used
to build the Great Wall of China, the Egyptian Pyramids, the Taj
Mahal in India, Islamia College in Pakistan, the Colosseum in
Rome, and many other world-famous architectural structures.
The trend of foam or Lightweight masonry units come into the
market in the 1950s. Unit weight of foam concrete block masonry
units is about 400 kg/m3 (25 lb/ft3) to 1600 kg/m3 (100 lb/ft3)
with 5 to 15 MPa 28-days strength respectively depending on
foaming agent percentage by volume of cement. Some Figure 1 Statistics of Masonry structures in Pakistan [2]
advantages are Many times, more fire-resistant and insulating
(both thermal and acoustic) properties, significant reduction of 1.1 Background study:
service dead load, and large size (8 in.×8 in.×24 in.) than its Masonry structures have played a significant role throughout
cousin, Heavyweight masonry units (8 in.×8 in.×16 in.) Less unit history. It's interesting to see how many structures made of this
weight (weighs 20 to 30% less than heavyweight units), bigger material have survived to this day. The most essential feature of
size, more resistivity to fire, good insulation, and compatible 28- masonry is the ease with which it can be built. Placing stones,
day strength makes it very economical. It is easy for laborers to blocks, or bricks on top of each other is a simple but effective
technique that has been used since ancient times [4]. Nowadays
 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Disaster Management
Arranged by: Department of Civil Engineering, UET Peshawar.
reinforced concrete frame structures are gaining marketplace in
Pakistan. In reinforced concrete frame structures columns, beams
and slabs are costed and walls are constructed as a partition.
Bricks, blocks, or other masonry units are used for the partition
walls. The unit weight of these masonry units is large and
contributes to the dead load significantly. So, it is the need of the
day to use lightweight materials like FC blocks in partition walls
Foam concrete blocks are novel masonry units, and they might
be the best option when it comes to reducing the overall dead
load of a building.
Mouli et. Al. [5] did a study on FC block masonry they found
that FC blocks having densities 900 Kg/m3 and higher are safe
to be used in load-bearing walls. Another study was conducted
by Bhosale et. al. [3] they concluded that FC blocks have 60 to
80% less compressive strength and therefore can’t be used in
load-bearing walls. The failure mode is almost similar to
conventional clay bricks. Khalid [11] done his master’s research
study on FC masonry. In his research work he done prism and
diagonal testing of the masonry along with full scale walls. Their
findings were 65 psi, 18500 psi, 17 psi and 19 psi for
compressive strength, elastic modulus, Tensile strength, and
shear strength respectively,
IrfanUllah et. al. [10] published a detailed study on FC block
masonry, they done testing on both un-strengthened and
strengthened (with ferrocement overlay). They found that
ferrocement overlay has almost no effect on the physical
properties of FC masonry. The average compressive strengths
and elastic modulus for both the masonry were 61 psi and 18000
psi respectively.
1.2 Improvement techniques:
There are numerous improvement technologies available in the
market like Surface coating, reinforced shotcrete overlays, Ferro-
cement overlays, the application of fiber reinforced polymers,
grout injection, epoxy injection, external reinforcing, post-
tensioning, central core technique, etc. M. Ashraf [6] and [7]
provided an overview of the numerous traditional retrofitting
techniques used for unreinforced masonry (URM) structures,
along with their relative benefits and drawbacks. The most
suited, economical, and effective technology is ferrocement
overlay.
1.2.1 Ferrocement overlay
Ferrocement overlay, also known as reinforced plaster, is done
by plastering on one or both face with the addition of mesh over
walls, as shown in Figure 2. Typically, the reinforcement is a
steel mesh made of welded wire that is fastened to the wall using
screws or bolts.
Figure 2 Mesh for ferrocement overlay
According to research [9], ferrocement overlays are useful for
improving unreinforced masonry's in-plane and out-of-plane
performance (both in terms of strength and deformation
capacity). A further benefit of the ferrocement overlays is the
reduction in the height-to-depth ratio, which, keeping the wall
intake, will increase dynamic stability and/or arching action.
Alcocer et al. Found that the degree of damage, the kind and size
of masonry specimens, the mesh size, and the kind of anchoring
were all important to consider I should say they were affecting
the results.
From the information provided above, it is concluded that very
limited research work is conducted on FC block masonry.
Furthermore, FC block masonry is weak and can’t be used in
load-bearing walls or in seismic active regions. Studying the
mechanical characteristics and lateral resistance of FC block
masonry enhanced with ferrocement under axial compression
and diagonal compression is one of the goals of this research.
1.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE:
With the rapid expansion of the construction sector especially in
developing nations, masonry remains one of the significant
materials. Due to the heavy densities of masonry units, the dead
load of a building increases very much. It is therefore a need to
shift from heavy densities masonry units to lightweight masonry
units. Lightweight masonry units can’t be used for load-bearing
walls due to their low compressive strength and impact behavior.
This study is therefore an attempt to assess both mechanical
properties and lateral resistance of FC block masonry after the
application of the ferrocement overlay.
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT:
• No guidelines regarding FC block masonry are
provided by the building code of Pakistan
• Up to date, very little research is done on the reckoning
of the mechanical properties and lateral resistance
• The mechanical properties and impact behavior of FC
block masonry are weak
• This applies that there is a prime need to check the
mechanical properties of FC block masonry.
Ferrocement was applied to compare the results with
those results obtained from un-strengthen FC masonry
as mentioned earlier in the literature part.
1.4 OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the mechanical properties of FC block masonry
prism and diagonal samples and to simulate Compressive
Strength “σo”, Elastic Modulus “Em”, Shear Strength “τ”,
Tensile Strength “σt” and to determine the lateral resistance for
seismic assessment.
1.5 METHODOLOGY:
1.5.1 Materials:
A local manufacturing company (Exact solution (Pvt) Ltd.
Islamabad) provided the blocks for tests. The blocks were
transported to Peshawar. Tests were carried out in the Civil
Department's Structural Laboratory, University of Engineering
and Technology, Peshawar. The nominal size of the block was
24″ x 8″ x 6″.
The required specimens which are tested are prepared in two
stages.
Stage-1:
 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Disaster Management

Arranged by: Department of Civil Engineering, UET Peshawar.

Two types of specimens were prepared and a total of 6 specimens

i.e., three specimens for diagonal and three specimens for prism
testing. The size of specimens for diagonal testing was 4 feet x 4
feet and three specimens were 2 feet x 2 feet for prism testing as
shown in Figure 3 and 4. A 1:4 mortar was used. They were
prepared as per ASTM E519-07.

Figure 7 Prism specimen been Plastered

Figure 3 Prism specimen Figure 4 Diagonal specimen

Table 1 shows the compressive strength of the mortar utilized in

the joints.
Table 1. Mortar Cubes' Compressive Strength (ASTM C-109)
S. No. Specimen Average
Compressive Figure 8 Diagonal specimen been plastered
Strength (psi)
The compressive strength of the mortar used for plaster is given
1 P1, P2, and P3 250 in the Table 2.

D1, D2, and Table 2 Mortar Cubes' Compressive Strength for plaster (ASTM C-109)
2 250 S. No Specimen Average Strength (Psi)
D3

Stage-2: 1 P1, P2 240

and P3
In the 2nd stage the prepared specimens in stage 1, after proper
2 D1, D2, 240
curing strengthened with Ferro cement overlay as shown in
and D3
Figures 5,6,7, and 8. Properties and important dimensions of the
materials used in Ferro-cement overlay are: 1.5.2 Masonry specimen tests:
• 16-gauge steel welded wire mesh with 1-inch x 1-inch Prisms were tested in the Universal Testing Machine (UTM) as
opening shown. Diagonal specimens were tested as shown in Figure 9 and
• 1.5-inch Screws of 4-mm diameter 10. Strain gages were as shown. Data was stored in the data
• Washer with an exterior diameter of 1.375-inch and logger.
interior diameter of 0.24-inch
• 0.5-inch-thick Plaster of 1:4

Figure 5 Prism with mesh Figure 6 Diagonal with mesh

Figure 9 Prism specimen under testing

 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Disaster Management

Arranged by: Department of Civil Engineering, UET Peshawar.

Table 3 Compressive Strength of block prism

Compressive Strength of blocks prism
S. Specimen Length Width Sectional Area Maximum Compressive
No (in) (in) (in2) load (kips) Strength (psi)
01 P1 24 9 216 7.34 68.00
02 P2 24 9 216 7.13 66.80
03 P3 24 9 216 6.74 62.36
Average Compressive strength of blocks prism = 65.72 psi
8.00E+01

7.00E+01

6.00E+01

5.00E+01
Stress (Psi)
4.00E+01

3.00E+01

2.00E+01

Figure 10 Diagonal specimen testing

1.00E+01

1.6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

0.00E+00
1.6.1 Compressive strength:
0.00E+00 1.00E-02 2.00E-02 3.00E-02
The Prisms were tested under universal testing machine and the
data was extracted from the data logger. The average stress Strain
against strain graph was plotted for all three specimens as shown
in Figure 11. Figure 11 Stress - strain for Prism Specimens

The compressive strength of three block masonry prisms was

tested, and the outcomes are shown in the Table 3.

One strain gauge was used to measure the strain in prisms.

Young's Modulus of Block prism for each of the three prisms is
shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Young’s Modulus of prism
Young’s Modulus of prism
S. No Specimen Young’s Modulus
(psi)
01 P1 22.00
02 P2 21.99
03 P3 21.98
Average Young’s Modulus of prism = 21.99 ksi

Diagonal specimens were tested in the lab and the data was
extracted from the data logger. An average shear stress against
shear strain graph was plotted for all the three specimens as
shown in Figure 12.
 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Disaster Management

Arranged by: Department of Civil Engineering, UET Peshawar.

Resistance in lateral direction of walls based on test results for

3.50E+01 different specimen has been calculated by using Equation and the
results are given in the Table 8 as follows.
3.00E+01
Table 8 Resistance in lateral direction of masonry specimens
Lateral resistance of masonry specimens
2.50E+01
S. Specimen AW Ԏo =
(in2) 𝑃
Shear Stress

No 0.55 Hs,w = Aw Ԏ0
2.00E+01 𝐴
Shear Lateral resistance
Strength (psi) (kips)
1.50E+01
0 W1 432 18.70 8.08
1
1.00E+01 0 W2 432 18.98 8.20
2
5.00E+00 0 W3 432 19.25 8.32
3
0.00E+00 Average Lateral resistance of masonry specimens = 8.2 psi
0.00E+002.00E-034.00E-036.00E-038.00E-031.00E-02

Shear Strain So, The compressive strength of FC masonry is 65.72 psi,

Young’s modulus of FC masonry is 21.99 ksi whereas, the
Figure 12 Shear stress against Shear Strain for diagonal specimens diagonal compression strength of FC masonry is 34.50 psi, the
tensile strength of FC masonry is 16.91 psi, the shear strength of
Diagonal compression strength of masonry specimens is
FC masonry is 18.98 psi, and lateral resistance of FC masonry is
calculated, and the results are given below in Table 5.
8.2 psi
Table 5 Diagonal Compression Strength of diagonal specimens
σd = (P/A)
(P) 1.7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(A) Sectional Diagonal
S. Maximum Prism and Diagonal tests were performed on the samples, and
Specimen Area of Specimen Compression
No 2 Load
(in ) Strength from the test results, the following conclusions are made.
(kips)
(psi) • From the results it is concluded that the improvement
technology is in-effective over FC block masonry.
1 W1 432 14.69 34
• Comparing the results with previous study mentioned
2 W2 432 14..9 34.5 in this manuscript shows that ferrocement overlay has
no effect on the physical properties of the FC block
3 W3 432 15.12 35 masonry
• Lateral resistance remained the same as calculated by
Khalid et. al.
Average Diagonal Compression Strength of Block masonry • Though the capacity wasn’t improved but initial cracks
specimens = 34.50 psi. in the plaster during test is important indicator of the
Tensile strength has been calculated from Diagonal compression warning before further crushing of the masonry.
test by using Equation and the results are given in the Table 6 as According to the study's findings, foam concrete block masonry
follows: can be used successfully for non-load-bearing walls or low-stress
construction projects like single-story structures, partition walls
Table 6 Tensile strength of masonry specimens
boundary walls, or pavement sidewalks.
Tensile strength of masonry specimens
S. Specimen (A) Sectional (P) σt = The recommendations made are listed below.
No Area of Maximum 0.49
𝑃 • For the upcoming research, it is highly recommended
𝐴 to further explore the physical and mechanical
Specimen Load (kips)
Tensile
(in2) properties of FC masonry
Strength
(psi) • It is recommended to take care of the load application
01 W1 432 14.4 16.66 arrangements during the testing of FC masonry. The
02 W2 432 14.62 16.91 loads should be uniformly transformed to the FC
03 W3 432 14.82 17.15 masonry otherwise load concentration will occur
Average Tensile strength of masonry specimens = 16.91 psi which will affect the results. FC masonry is sensitive
to load concentrations
Average Tensile strength of masonry specimens = 16.91 psi • Concern industries are recommended to use less
Shear strength has been calculated as shown in Table 7.
percentage of foaming agent to have greater
Table 7 Shear strength of masonry specimens compressive strength and impact behavior of
Shear strength of masonry specimens individual block
𝑃 𝑃
S. Specimen σc = 0.83 σt = Ԏo = 0.55
𝐴 𝑃 𝐴
No 0.49
Compressive 𝐴 Shear Strength
Strength Tensile (psi) REFERENCES
(Psi) Strength [1]. Shahzada, Khan. 2007. “Improvement of Masonry
(psi) Structures against Seismic Force.” University of
01 W1 28.22 16.66 18.70 Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan
02 W2 28.64 16.91 18.98 [2]. Ahmed, Muhammad, Sarosh Hashmat Lodi, Syed
03 W3 29.05 17.15 19.25 Shahid Ali, and Naveed Alam 2014. “Seismic Risk
Average Shear Strength of masonry specimens = 18.98 psi Assessment of Built Environment in Pakistan.” In
 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Civil Engineering and Disaster Management

Arranged by: Department of Civil Engineering, UET Peshawar.

   

, 25–29
[3]. Bhosale A, Zade NP, Sarkar P, Davis R. Mechanical
and physical properties of cellular lightweight concrete
blockmasonry. Construction and Building Materials
2020;248:118621.DOI:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.1
18621
[4]. Mosalam, K, L Glascoe, and J Bernier. 2009.
“Mechanical Properties of Unreinforced Brick
Masonry,” 1–26
[5]. Mouli M, Khelafi H. Performance characteristics of
lightweight aggregate concrete containing natural
pozzolan. Building and Environment 2008; 43(1): 31–
36.DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.038
[6]. M. Ashraf, A. Naseer, A. Naeem, K. Shahzada,
“Seismic Up-gradation of Unreinforced Masonry
Buildings as a Part of Disaster Management Policy”,
International Disaster Management Conference-2009,
Nathiagali, Pakistan
[7]. M. ElGawady, P. Lestuzzi, M. Badoux, “A Review of
Conventional Seismic Retrofitting Techniques for
URM” 13th IB2MaC Amsterdam, July 4-7, 2004
[8]. Lizudia B., Homes W. T., Longstreth M., Kern A. and
Abrams D. P., “Development of procedures to enhance
the performance of rehabilitated URM buildings”,
Technical Report No. NIST GCR 97- 724-1, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
Mary Land, 1997
[9]. Daniel P. Abrams, “Seismic Rehabilitation Methods
for Unreinforced Masonry Walls”, 3rd EQTAP
Workshop, Nov. 28-30, 2000, Manila, Philippines
[10]. Irfan, U., Hamad, S., Zaman, L., Inayat Ullah, K., &
Khan, K. (2022). Comparative Study on the
Strengthening of Cellular Lightweight Concrete Block
(CLC) Masonry. International Journal of Research in
Engineering, Science and Management, 5(9), 3.
[11]. Khalid, K. (2022).Thesis:seismic performance
evaluation of cellular lightweight concrete block
masonry walls. https://www.hec.g

View publication stats